Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a open ping port a problem?

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 4:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.

I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and that
was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?

Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site. My
Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in stealth
mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
installed. Is my assumption well thought out.

Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
need it open to operate the Wireless Network? What is the
recommended solution. Am I be overly concerned with
Hackers?

I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as a
new Network user and a ICS user.

Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
correct my problem thinking.

John

More about : open ping port problem

February 17, 2005 10:46:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

inline


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>
> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and that
> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?

Not familiar with the equipement you're using for your DSL connection, but
if, like you say, you are using Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) then
basically every machine in your network only makes use of the 'physical'
connection to the internet provided by 1 machine.
That machine does nothing but 'shuffle' (if you like) the data through the
network connection without looking at it, so each machine will have to have
its own protection software (antiviral, blockers,spybots, firewall, etc.)

>
> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site. My
> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in stealth
> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
> Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.

Port 110 is used for mail (notably incoming mail using the POP3 protocol,
like in outlook(express))
It has nothing to do with the fact that you are using HTML coded
mailmessages.
HTML is merely a method of puttig your messages in a particular format,
notably HTML format.
You might want to check out your connection using ShieldsUp at Gibson
Reasearch www.grc.com.
Do the check from all of your machines, once you've got them working.

>
> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
> need it open to operate the Wireless Network?

Ideally all ports should be closed/stealthed, looking at them 'from the
outside'
'Closed' still indicates to the world that the machine as such exists on the
net.
'Stealth' doesn't provide any clue as to the existance of any machine
whatsoever at that address/port.


> What is the recommended solution.

Use the firewall function in your DSL equipement (if present) or (if none
present) a firewall solution on every machine

> Am I be overly concerned with Hackers?

IMHO not.
'Overly', maybe.
'Concerned' is a very good thing.
There are some pretty sick people out there.


>
> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as a
> new Network user and a ICS user.
>
> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
> correct my problem thinking.
>
> John
>
>
>

george
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 11:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Thanks George,

I have read your in-line reply several times. Although some
it may be above my compression level, I think I will be
able to do as you suggested. I am clear that both client
computers need essentially the same or equal protection as
the host from the "do bads.

I did do a ShieldUp test on the Host Computer. Some parts
appeared to have passed and some did not. I will return
ASAP and rerun and try and understand more by rereading the
info as closely as possible in a attempt to fix if required.
Also, will take the two other Computer thru the test ASAP.

As I understand my DSL Westel Modem and SMC Barricade Router
offers me hardware protection. But, I am not sure so will
try and find out more about the equipment. I think I have
the MS Firewall system on the two client Computers. I
probably will reinstall Zone Alarm. It appeared that Zone
Alarm and Norton's were keeping my Wireless Network from
working..

Thanks Again. I do appreciate your time and effort.

John

"george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:uA9xOESFFHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
inline


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>
> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
> that
> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?

Not familiar with the equipement you're using for your DSL
connection, but
if, like you say, you are using Internet Connection Sharing
(ICS) then
basically every machine in your network only makes use of
the 'physical'
connection to the internet provided by 1 machine.
That machine does nothing but 'shuffle' (if you like) the
data through the
network connection without looking at it, so each machine
will have to have
its own protection software (antiviral, blockers,spybots,
firewall, etc.)

>
> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
> My
> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
> stealth
> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
> Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.

Port 110 is used for mail (notably incoming mail using the
POP3 protocol,
like in outlook(express))
It has nothing to do with the fact that you are using HTML
coded
mailmessages.
HTML is merely a method of puttig your messages in a
particular format,
notably HTML format.
You might want to check out your connection using ShieldsUp
at Gibson
Reasearch www.grc.com.
Do the check from all of your machines, once you've got them
working.

>
> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
> need it open to operate the Wireless Network?

Ideally all ports should be closed/stealthed, looking at
them 'from the
outside'
'Closed' still indicates to the world that the machine as
such exists on the
net.
'Stealth' doesn't provide any clue as to the existance of
any machine
whatsoever at that address/port.


> What is the recommended solution.

Use the firewall function in your DSL equipement (if
present) or (if none
present) a firewall solution on every machine

> Am I be overly concerned with Hackers?

IMHO not.
'Overly', maybe.
'Concerned' is a very good thing.
There are some pretty sick people out there.


>
> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as
> a
> new Network user and a ICS user.
>
> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
> correct my problem thinking.
>
> John
>
>
>

george
Related resources
February 18, 2005 2:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:uvOH9lVFFHA.624@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks George,
>
> I have read your in-line reply several times. Although some
> it may be above my compression level, I think I will be
> able to do as you suggested. I am clear that both client
> computers need essentially the same or equal protection as
> the host from the "do bads.
>
> I did do a ShieldUp test on the Host Computer. Some parts
> appeared to have passed and some did not. I will return
> ASAP and rerun and try and understand more by rereading the
> info as closely as possible in a attempt to fix if required.
> Also, will take the two other Computer thru the test ASAP.
>
> As I understand my DSL Westel Modem and SMC Barricade Router
> offers me hardware protection. But, I am not sure so will
> try and find out more about the equipment. I think I have
> the MS Firewall system on the two client Computers. I
> probably will reinstall Zone Alarm. It appeared that Zone
> Alarm and Norton's were keeping my Wireless Network from
> working..
>
> Thanks Again. I do appreciate your time and effort.
>
> John
>
> "george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:uA9xOESFFHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> inline
>
>
> "Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
> news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
>> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>>
>> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
>> that
>> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
>> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
>> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
>> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>
> Not familiar with the equipement you're using for your DSL
> connection, but
> if, like you say, you are using Internet Connection Sharing
> (ICS) then
> basically every machine in your network only makes use of
> the 'physical'
> connection to the internet provided by 1 machine.
> That machine does nothing but 'shuffle' (if you like) the
> data through the
> network connection without looking at it, so each machine
> will have to have
> its own protection software (antiviral, blockers,spybots,
> firewall, etc.)
>
>>
>> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
>> My
>> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
>> stealth
>> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
>> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
>> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
>> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
>> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
>> Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
>> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>
> Port 110 is used for mail (notably incoming mail using the
> POP3 protocol,
> like in outlook(express))
> It has nothing to do with the fact that you are using HTML
> coded
> mailmessages.
> HTML is merely a method of puttig your messages in a
> particular format,
> notably HTML format.
> You might want to check out your connection using ShieldsUp
> at Gibson
> Reasearch www.grc.com.
> Do the check from all of your machines, once you've got them
> working.
>
>>
>> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
>> need it open to operate the Wireless Network?
>
> Ideally all ports should be closed/stealthed, looking at
> them 'from the
> outside'
> 'Closed' still indicates to the world that the machine as
> such exists on the
> net.
> 'Stealth' doesn't provide any clue as to the existance of
> any machine
> whatsoever at that address/port.
>
>
>> What is the recommended solution.
>
> Use the firewall function in your DSL equipement (if
> present) or (if none
> present) a firewall solution on every machine
>
>> Am I be overly concerned with Hackers?
>
> IMHO not.
> 'Overly', maybe.
> 'Concerned' is a very good thing.
> There are some pretty sick people out there.
>
>
>>
>> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as
>> a
>> new Network user and a ICS user.
>>
>> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
>> correct my problem thinking.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
> george
>
>
>


Bill,

Your Barricade router will (very likely) have an integrated 4 port switch
(on the Local Area Network or LAN side) that enables you to physically
connect your pc's to it, using utp network cables.
It will also have the capability to provide LAN IP addressing information
(like ip addr/subnet mask/default gateway/dns server addr) to your pc's
(this functionality is called DHCP).
It will also have Network Address Translation (or NAT) capability, so it
will do the address translation needed to get out to the internet.
Because of this translation, your internal network addresses will not be
directly accessible from the outside and this basically constitutes a
hardware based firewall functionality.
Having said that you now have a couple of choices.
You can see if the default firewall configuration of the router meets your
needs and adjust it if need be.
I'd definitely recommend that.
It will however entail getting into the subject of protocols and ports in
more detail in order to do that correctly.
Next there is the SP2 Windows Firewall (part of Security Center) that also
plays a part here.
Per default that (software based) firewall is turned on and lacks some
functionality. Notably it doesn't examine outgoing traffic to be traffic
that is allowed. It just 'assumes' (since it is traffic initiated on the
inside) that it is therefor allowed. (And we all know what 'assuming' means
:-))
(eg. some 'malware' program that establishes contact to the outside world,
without you knowing, will not be hindered by this firewall).
Then there are other (software based) firewalls, like you mentioned
ZoneAlarm.
They too do a fine job, one better then the other, but who's counting.
There is no real gain in having more than one software based firewall
running on the same machine.
Au contraire, it will be a performance hit and possibly increase the chance
for 'false positives', depending on how good each one of them is.

hth (and doesn't confuse the issue)

george
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 10:17:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Just an FYI also, If you place a router in your network, most have built in
firewall protection, it will stealth all your ports and you wont have to
worry about it.


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>
> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and that
> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>
> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site. My
> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in stealth
> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
> Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>
> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
> need it open to operate the Wireless Network? What is the
> recommended solution. Am I be overly concerned with
> Hackers?
>
> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as a
> new Network user and a ICS user.
>
> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
> correct my problem thinking.
>
> John
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 12:37:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

"george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:%23rGc$PaFFHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:uvOH9lVFFHA.624@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks George,
>
> I have read your in-line reply several times. Although
> some
> it may be above my compression level, I think I will be
> able to do as you suggested. I am clear that both client
> computers need essentially the same or equal protection as
> the host from the "do bads.
>
> I did do a ShieldUp test on the Host Computer. Some parts
> appeared to have passed and some did not. I will return
> ASAP and rerun and try and understand more by rereading
> the
> info as closely as possible in a attempt to fix if
> required.
> Also, will take the two other Computer thru the test ASAP.
>
> As I understand my DSL Westel Modem and SMC Barricade
> Router
> offers me hardware protection. But, I am not sure so will
> try and find out more about the equipment. I think I have
> the MS Firewall system on the two client Computers. I
> probably will reinstall Zone Alarm. It appeared that Zone
> Alarm and Norton's were keeping my Wireless Network from
> working..
>
> Thanks Again. I do appreciate your time and effort.
>
> John
>
> "george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:uA9xOESFFHA.3732@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> inline
>
>
> "Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
> news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
>> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>>
>> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
>> that
>> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop
>> by
>> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
>> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone
>> Alarm,
>> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>
> Not familiar with the equipement you're using for your DSL
> connection, but
> if, like you say, you are using Internet Connection
> Sharing
> (ICS) then
> basically every machine in your network only makes use of
> the 'physical'
> connection to the internet provided by 1 machine.
> That machine does nothing but 'shuffle' (if you like) the
> data through the
> network connection without looking at it, so each machine
> will have to have
> its own protection software (antiviral, blockers,spybots,
> firewall, etc.)
>
>>
>> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
>> My
>> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
>> stealth
>> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
>> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
>> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port
>> (110)
>> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
>> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
>> Washer, Zone Alarm, Sybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
>> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>
> Port 110 is used for mail (notably incoming mail using the
> POP3 protocol,
> like in outlook(express))
> It has nothing to do with the fact that you are using HTML
> coded
> mailmessages.
> HTML is merely a method of puttig your messages in a
> particular format,
> notably HTML format.
> You might want to check out your connection using
> ShieldsUp
> at Gibson
> Reasearch www.grc.com.
> Do the check from all of your machines, once you've got
> them
> working.
>
>>
>> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't
>> I
>> need it open to operate the Wireless Network?
>
> Ideally all ports should be closed/stealthed, looking at
> them 'from the
> outside'
> 'Closed' still indicates to the world that the machine as
> such exists on the
> net.
> 'Stealth' doesn't provide any clue as to the existance of
> any machine
> whatsoever at that address/port.
>
>
>> What is the recommended solution.
>
> Use the firewall function in your DSL equipement (if
> present) or (if none
> present) a firewall solution on every machine
>
>> Am I be overly concerned with Hackers?
>
> IMHO not.
> 'Overly', maybe.
> 'Concerned' is a very good thing.
> There are some pretty sick people out there.
>
>
>>
>> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well
>> as
>> a
>> new Network user and a ICS user.
>>
>> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
>> correct my problem thinking.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
> george
>
>
>


Bill,

Your Barricade router will (very likely) have an integrated
4 port switch
(on the Local Area Network or LAN side) that enables you to
physically
connect your pc's to it, using utp network cables.
It will also have the capability to provide LAN IP
addressing information
(like ip addr/subnet mask/default gateway/dns server addr)
to your pc's
(this functionality is called DHCP).
It will also have Network Address Translation (or NAT)
capability, so it
will do the address translation needed to get out to the
internet.
Because of this translation, your internal network addresses
will not be
directly accessible from the outside and this basically
constitutes a
hardware based firewall functionality.
Having said that you now have a couple of choices.
You can see if the default firewall configuration of the
router meets your
needs and adjust it if need be.
I'd definitely recommend that.
It will however entail getting into the subject of protocols
and ports in
more detail in order to do that correctly.
Next there is the SP2 Windows Firewall (part of Security
Center) that also
plays a part here.
Per default that (software based) firewall is turned on and
lacks some
functionality. Notably it doesn't examine outgoing traffic
to be traffic
that is allowed. It just 'assumes' (since it is traffic
initiated on the
inside) that it is therefor allowed. (And we all know what
'assuming' means
:-))
(eg. some 'malware' program that establishes contact to the
outside world,
without you knowing, will not be hindered by this firewall).
Then there are other (software based) firewalls, like you
mentioned
ZoneAlarm.
They too do a fine job, one better then the other, but who's
counting.
There is no real gain in having more than one software based
firewall
running on the same machine.
Au contraire, it will be a performance hit and possibly
increase the chance
for 'false positives', depending on how good each one of
them is.

hth (and doesn't confuse the issue)

george

Thanks again George for the good info. Sorry that I did not
reply sooner but have been busy. I did want to study or at
least read some from my 124 Page Barricade Manual and check
a little more with my DSL service provider on system type
before responding. However, I did not get around to it.

I really don't know for sure what I am talking about but
from the intro from the Barricade.

1. It provides DHCP for dynamic IP configuration and DNS
for domain name mapping.

I think my DSL provider provides DHCP - my IP address and
ADSL is different each time I check with ShieldUp..

2. Provides Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) firewall with
client privilege, hacker prevention, and NAT.

Plus other Features and Benefits. It is 2.4 GHZ 11 MBPS
Wireless Cable/DS and 802.11b compliant. I bought it some
time ago and just now have been able to use it because I now
have DSL.

I have been playing a little trying to get Zone Alarm to
tunnel or pass sharing files and printers. I am not sure
that I am successful but can see my other computers when
Zone Alarm is turned off. This situation is also present on
my other Computers using Norton Suite on one and Zone Alarm
on the others. I think I will be able to resolve the
problem and still have software protection on the other
Computers without resorting to turning off the Firewall
Software protection. Just hope that I am not hit with any
"do bads" until I am able..

Thanks so much for your help.

John
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 2:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

OK DLink Guru. I will consider that option. I am not sure
how to set up another router to operate in conjunction with
my Toshiba built in wireless system (card). Would it be
better or just as good as using Zone Alarm, Spybot, Adaware,
and a Popup stopper. You do mean that by setting up the
router that it would not be necessary to use the proceeding
software programs for my Lap Top?

Thanks again for your suggestion.

John

"DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%2394zoqvFFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Just an FYI also, If you place a router in your network,
most have built in
firewall protection, it will stealth all your ports and you
wont have to
worry about it.


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>
> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
> that
> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>
> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
> My
> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
> stealth
> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
> Washer, Zone Alarm, Spybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>
> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
> need it open to operate the Wireless Network? What is the
> recommended solution. Am I be overly concerned with
> Hackers?
>
> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as
> a
> new Network user and a ICS user.
>
> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
> correct my problem thinking.
>
> John
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 3:53:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

No, spyware is mainly recieved by surfing internet sites and being installed
via your browser, has nothing to do with firewalling, and the same with
popups. Routers will physically stealth your ports to the Internet side of
your network making it appear that you do not even have a connection to the
Internet, effectivly hiding you from potential hackers and not allowing any
backdoor trojans or file servers to run on your systems with out your
knowlede. Popups and malware are totally differnt animals. I run Spyware
Doctore (with a popup blocker), Microsoft Anti Spyware Beta, Microsoft SP2
Firewall and Norton Antivirus 2004. All this is for added Protection. Cant
ever have enough with todays Geeks out there.


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:ulwQvV2FFHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> OK DLink Guru. I will consider that option. I am not sure
> how to set up another router to operate in conjunction with
> my Toshiba built in wireless system (card). Would it be
> better or just as good as using Zone Alarm, Spybot, Adaware,
> and a Popup stopper. You do mean that by setting up the
> router that it would not be necessary to use the proceeding
> software programs for my Lap Top?
>
> Thanks again for your suggestion.
>
> John
>
> "DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:%2394zoqvFFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Just an FYI also, If you place a router in your network,
> most have built in
> firewall protection, it will stealth all your ports and you
> wont have to
> worry about it.
>
>
> "Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
> news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
>> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>>
>> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
>> that
>> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop by
>> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
>> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone Alarm,
>> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>>
>> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
>> My
>> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
>> stealth
>> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
>> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
>> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port (110)
>> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
>> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
>> Washer, Zone Alarm, Spybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
>> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>>
>> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't I
>> need it open to operate the Wireless Network? What is the
>> recommended solution. Am I be overly concerned with
>> Hackers?
>>
>> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well as
>> a
>> new Network user and a ICS user.
>>
>> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
>> correct my problem thinking.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 20, 2005 8:31:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windows.networking.wireless (More info?)

Ok, DLink Guru. I understand and thanks so much for your
quick and timely reply. I will continue to work to learn a
little more about Wireless, Routers, etc. All traffic is
thru my SMC Barricade Router via my desktop connection to
the Internet. .

John


"DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%23Pe4L54FFHA.624@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
No, spyware is mainly recieved by surfing internet sites and
being installed
via your browser, has nothing to do with firewalling, and
the same with
popups. Routers will physically stealth your ports to the
Internet side of
your network making it appear that you do not even have a
connection to the
Internet, effectivly hiding you from potential hackers and
not allowing any
backdoor trojans or file servers to run on your systems with
out your
knowlede. Popups and malware are totally differnt animals. I
run Spyware
Doctore (with a popup blocker), Microsoft Anti Spyware Beta,
Microsoft SP2
Firewall and Norton Antivirus 2004. All this is for added
Protection. Cant
ever have enough with todays Geeks out there.


"Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
news:ulwQvV2FFHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> OK DLink Guru. I will consider that option. I am not
> sure
> how to set up another router to operate in conjunction
> with
> my Toshiba built in wireless system (card). Would it be
> better or just as good as using Zone Alarm, Spybot,
> Adaware,
> and a Popup stopper. You do mean that by setting up the
> router that it would not be necessary to use the
> proceeding
> software programs for my Lap Top?
>
> Thanks again for your suggestion.
>
> John
>
> "DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in
> message
> news:%2394zoqvFFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Just an FYI also, If you place a router in your network,
> most have built in
> firewall protection, it will stealth all your ports and
> you
> wont have to
> worry about it.
>
>
> "Bull Durham" <jsdbullspam@hotmail. com> wrote in message
> news:o 2drzwRFFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>I am in the process of setting up a wireless network with
>> three computers using Bell South DSL and ICS.
>>
>> I think I have succeeded by solving my last problem and
>> that
>> was being able to see and be seen on the Toshiba LapTop
>> by
>> removing Norton's System Works. Do I need antiviral
>> protection, pop up blockers, ad aware, spybot, Zone
>> Alarm,
>> etc. or programs similar to this on the client computers?
>>
>> Also, I ran a Security Check on line at Norton WWW site.
>> My
>> Hacker Exposure Check results were all closed or in
>> stealth
>> mode except for two. The two were a open ping port (ICMP
>> ping) and a HTTP port (110). Since I do send and receive
>> HTML type emails, I will assume that this open port
>> (110)
>> is open for that reason and therefore acceptable as I am
>> willing to assume the risk considering that I have Mail
>> Washer, Zone Alarm, Spybot-SD, Ad Aware SE. and AVG
>> installed. Is my assumption well thought out.
>>
>> Does the open ping port pose an unacceptable risk? Don't
>> I
>> need it open to operate the Wireless Network? What is
>> the
>> recommended solution. Am I be overly concerned with
>> Hackers?
>>
>> I am a new DSL user (formerly on Phone dial-up) as well
>> as
>> a
>> new Network user and a ICS user.
>>
>> Thanks for any and all input to relieve my concerns or
>> correct my problem thinking.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
!